Tagged: Jan/Mar 2011

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

CA Shipping & Chartering v. International Commodities Export Corp. (The “Audre”) – SMA No. 4077, 31 May 2010

FOSFO -- HAZARDOUS CARGO -- REPUDIATION OF CHARTER PARTY -- DEADFREIGHT -- DETENTION -- Owner Award Vessel’s inoperable smoke detection system caused Charterer to refuse to load cargo of bulk sulphur citing OSHA’s claiming the cargo to be hazardous (subsequently requiring a smoke detector system) despite IMO, SOLAS, USCG, Charterer’s supplier and LLOYD’s deeming the cargo to not be hazardous nor requiring the Vessel to have smoke detectors. Owner repudiated the charter and was awarded deadfreight (less savings from not performing the voyage). Owner was not awarded detention basis an express term stipulating damages for non-performance will be "proven damages not exceeding the estimated amount of freight." Panel had already awarded the value of the freight.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Glory Wealth Shipping Pte. Ltd. v. North China Shipping Ltd. (The “North Prince”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 8 July 2010

TIME CHARTER -- EARLY REDELIVERY -- MEASURE OF DAMAGES -- Owner Award The Court reaffirmed the tribunal’s decision that when assessing damages for early redelivery under a time charter the difference between the contract rate and the market rate is awarded. The tribunal assessed the "market rate" utilizing the Vessel’s actual fixtures as its basis and awarded damages for the remainder of the minimum charter period (despite the fact that the Disponent Owner redelivered the Vessel 22 days prior to the contractual expiry to the Head Owner). The Court ruled that early redelivery by the Disponent Owner is irrelevant when assessing damages unless the early redelivery resulted from Sub-Charterer’s breach.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Omak Maritime Ltd. v. Mamola Challenger Shipping Co. (The “Mamola Challenger”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 4 August 2010

TIME CHARTER -- RELIANCE DAMAGES -- EXPECTED DAMAGES -- LOSS OF PROFITS -- Charterer Award In reversing the tribunal’s reliance damages award, the Court disallowed the Owner to be compensated for expenses incurred by Charterer-mandated Vessel modifications when, in fact, the Owner did not suffer an economic loss from Charterer’s repudiatory breach. In fact, due to a rising market, the Owner benefited by significantly higher earnings than if the contract had been performed. Reliance damages are not to put the claimant in a better position than if the contract had been performed.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Owneast Shipping Ltd. v. Qatar Navigation QSC (The “Qatar Star”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 7 July 2010

NYPE -- TIME CHARTER -- UNPAID HIRE -- WHETHER WITHDRAWAL OF VESSEL WRONGFUL -- INTENTION -- Charterer Award Charterer’s failure to pay timely hire per the terms of the contract led Owner to withdraw the Vessel from Charterer’s service. The tribunal majority held that the late payments were a matter of poor management rather than acting in bad faith and, as such, warranted an anti-technicality notice rather than withdrawal of the ship.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

KG Bominflot Bunkergesellschaft Für Mineral Mineralöle mbH & Co KG v Petroplus Marketing AG (The “Mercini Lady”) – English Court of Appeal, 19 Oct 2010

CONTRACT OF SALE -- IMPLIED TERM REGARDING QUALITY AFTER DELIVERY -- CONDITION OF CARGO -- Seller Award Reversing the Commercial Court’s ruling, this appeal succeeded in stating that express contract terms could supersede statutory and common law’s implication that the condition of goods sold in an FOB contract must be a satisfactory quality at delivery and for a reasonable time thereafter.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 17/10

TIME CHARTER -- HOLDS REJECTED -- "NET LOSS OF TIME" CLAUSE OR “PERIOD OFF-HIRE” CLAUSE -- EXPEDITE RE-INSPECTION -- Charterer Award Upon having its holds rejected the Vessel cleaned them within three hours and presented for re-inspection that evening. The surveyor had already departed and only returned mid-morning of the next day with approval following in the late afternoon. Charterer argued that the applicable clause was a "period off-hire" clause and that all time up until re-inspection and approval to be deemed off-hire. The Panel agreed for the most part except felt that after re-boarding there was an excessive delay in approval and as such, the off-hire period ended shortly after the surveyor re-boarded which is when the Panel felt the surveyor should have approved the Vessel.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 19/10

VEGOILVOY -- PREMATURE NOTICE OF READINESS -- RIVER PORT -- ARRIVED SHIP -- Charterer Award Upon arrival at the Pilot Station the Vessel tendered Notice of Readiness (NOR) to Charterer’s berth 60 miles upriver and then shifted to an inner anchorage. The Panel determined the NOR tendered at the Pilot Station was premature and subsequently invalid and as no other NOR had been tendered, deemed laytime to only commence upon the Vessel being all fast in berth.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 20/10

ASBATANKVOY -- GENERAL EXCEPTIONS CLAUSE -- RESTRAINT OF PRINCES -- DETENTION -- IMPLIED INDEMNITY -- Partial Owner and Charterer Award The Vessel was detained for over 30 days by the Indonesian Navy for an apparently erroneous reason and upon release directed to deviate to Singapore for an additional 24 days whilst commercial considerations, themselves resulting from the aforementioned delay, were handled. The Panel ruled the arrest constituted Restraint of Princes with Charterer subsequently not being responsible for the lost time. However, the Panel ruled that the detention in Singapore was to count as demurrage with the deviation costs likewise for Charterer's account.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 22/10

NYPE -- SEAWORTHINESS -- CAUSATION -- OFF-HIRE -- Owner Award Due to defects in the hatch covers, 0.1% of a cargo of grain was water damaged en-route to the discharge port leading to a 24-day delay when the authorities refused to allow any of the grain to be discharged even though the wet grain could have been segregated. The Panel ruled that although the Vessel was unseaworthy, the root cause of the delay lay not with the Shipowner but rather with the conduct and actions of the authorities with the authorities’ actions and resultant delay being deemed unforeseeable.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.